Baff2

Do you? As for burying American presidents upside down if they got involved in civil wars, genocides of their own people or revolutions, which president are you planning to dig up first? It's not a case of right, it's a matter of power, and plenty of people hold that authority and have held that authority all through history. Unlike you, Stalin considered all those Russian massacring Nazi volunteers and death camp running Ukrainians not to be all that innocent. Neither do I. That you wish to define them as "his own people" says alot about you. In a revolution, the enemy is your enemy, not your own side. The same in a civil war, the same during an invasion. A war is a war.

Why would US citizens be apathetic to a country ruled by a man that kills millions of his own countrymen? or a country that has a government that allows it to happen? If an American president  did that, you would carve his face into a mountainside or something. America has had it's share of revolutions, civil wars and genocides too. Very disappointing, if not a little stomach turning to think this kind of attitude still persists in such an otherwise enlightened nation.

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... A feeling that's not too mutual currently. Deep down you get that fuzzy feel for America. So, you can't hate us. We don't hate America, America hates everyone foreign. American Exceptionalism is directly opposed to the national intrests of all other nations by it's fundamental principle. As long as you follow this path it is self-defeating for anyone to ally with you. In the long term, should you persist with this, we will have to take a stand against you. Here in England we culturally associate that attitude with Nazi Germany and the parts of British history that we are too ashamed to teach our children in school. The fuzzy feeling felt here for America comes predominantly from the WW2 generation. And they are a dying breed. The majority feeling here is anything but fuzzy. Visitors are advised to say they are Canadian in public. I was highly ashamed of my town when an American lady, here attending her mother's funeral last week, said her son had been attacked 3 times in as many nights. I live in Cambridge. A multicultural tourist town. I was speechless with shame. Support for the U.S. is not a vote winner. When given the vote, parliament voted against allying with the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq and PM's decision to do so anyway sparked the largest public demonstration in the history of the country.

How do you make them loot all the shops?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... A feeling that's not too mutual currently.

Not nearly, they've thousands report to hospital, grounded two aeroplanes, shut down an area of his hotel. They've found radiation all over the place, even in Italy and Germany. The saga continues.

Do you think the mass panic part was the radiation, or all the loud smoke alarms going off at the same time?

We're have an exploding peace protester. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....t12.xml Or at least we could of had, until they banned peace protests. Luckily parliament has been saved again!

As far as I'm aware Illusionsoft are still working on it, and Atari is still publishing it.

How about the United States does not drop the so-called "idea" of "American exceptionalism"? How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

My mistake. They changed it 5 years ago it seems. Not that I was right even then, since they changed it from 18 to 16.

I'm British, the age of consent for manloving here is 21. The Iranian parliament has an elected parliament. That makes it democratic. There are countless successful democracies in which positions of high authority are appointed not elected or in which the appointee's are censured by an unelected body. (The unelected House of Lords regulary veto's appointments to it's own body). With the neighbouring democracy of Iraq as a regional example, the largest political party in the land has been 100% vetoed from standing by a foreign power. Voter turnout however was still highly impressive. I wouldn't call it an advanced democracy or even a successful one, but it's still a democracy nevertheless. Gerrymandering is an unfortunate factor of all democracies not just Iran. The U.S. and GB have different methods of manipulating their own votes. But they have them nonetheless.

Id say they know quite a bit considering all the messing around with it they have done. If you think goverment-approved sources are the best way to get critical information on a country.. I also believe they called Pol Pot's cambodia the "Democratic Cambodia", north Korea the "People's republic of Korea" and of course every fucked up african state likes to put the word democratic and republic in their name. This is about the equivalent of calling somebody with 8 speeding tickets worse than somebody who was convicted of 7 murders. If your idea of progressive society is something where under 18-year-old boys can get strung up for gay sex I dont want to know what you consider regressive. Those American government agencies haven't had any involvement in Iran at all. I absolutely agree that politically motivated state controlled sources are not to be relied on upon. Particularly not foreign ones from an enemy nation that have been directly attempting to destabilise the regime for the last 30 years. Even domestic Iranian state departments are more credable than those. Iranians have the internet too. I spam with Iranians in Iran every bit as often as I do with you. They have telephones and internet, there is not a political appointee with a machine gun standing over them as they type. Our access to knowledge is not limited to government propaganda in this day and age. I'm not disputing that their are less liberalised democracies than our own, only that Iran has a very advanced one and is more comparable to our own than to Pol Pots. Amnesty Internationals reports on Iran are no worse than it's reports on Guantanmo or the H blocks in Northern Island. Injustice is not a word that only applies to foreigners. You offered the size of the reports as your qualification, I have demonstrated that to be very comparable. Not only that but I have demonstrated that in the case of Finland, those reports cite identical injustices. I don't think Amnesty Internetional addresses traffic violations. I'm not equating traffic offences with murder, I have equated the imprisonment of consciencious objectors with the imprisonment of consciencious objectors. While gay sex under the age of 18 is illegal here also, I don't attempt to condone hanging as a method of punishment. That is unacceptable in my own society. If you continue only to look for the injustices or evil in any society only, that is all you will find. You seem to have never looked for anything good about Iran. Only that which you are able to revile. You will never gain a balanced perspective about that place (or any other) until you learn to. I can't force you to be open minded, or to learn about things you do not wish to. I do however, offer the suggestion.

Freedom of speech while fully an admirable ideology, is not a system of government or a function of democracy. By way of comparison. The U.K. also does not have freedom of speech. The state is the largest media body and excerises censorship, editorial veto, lisencing restrictions and content enforcement over all the independants based on it's political, moral and religious agendas. Public demonstration is only allowed under approved lisence. You are not even allowed to say what you like to your friends and family in private. Racist incitements or anti-religious intolerance for example, are a criminal offence. The U.K.'s second chamber, it's judiciaries and it's head of state are all appointed not elected as are the BBC chiefs. It's still a democracy. I'll go further, it's still an advanced democracy.

What are you talking about? You are talking mumble jumbo like I do sometimes. I was talking about candidates for office (i.e. the House). You are ignoring what I said. I'm sorry but.... Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council agrees with you. I have given up. Â Since your comparison is mumbo jumbo, please forgive me if my any comment about it appears the same. The Guardian Council does not hold the same political function of the House in the U.S. You are still attempting to directly equate two different governmental systems. They do not equate. Iran is not the U.S. I'm aware of how the U.S. government and society functions. I'm aware of how the Iranian government functions. Believe it or not there is more than just one successful system of government on the planet. More than one type of successful democracy even. N.B. The President of America, agrees with you too.

I wasn't joking, no. Why would you think that I am? I completely fail to see why you would think that an American institution dedicated to advancing American traditions and American national defense policy would give you any kind of insight into a country which it hasn't even had any diplomatic relations with for 30 years, and whose leaders describe it as an evil and enemy state. What could they possibly know about the place? Why would you prefer that sort of an opinion to ones given by the people who actually live there? I know I don't. Iran has a democratically elected government therefore it is a real democracy. Hence the name "Republic of Iran". Amnesty complains about the unjust imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Finland, a charge it also lays against Iran. To put things into perspective, the Amnesty site has: 10 pages of reports on Iran. (pop 68 million) 10 pages of reports on the U.K. (pop 60 million) 50 pages of reports on the U.S.A. (pop 300 million) and 1 page on Finland (pop 5 million) Closer to Iran's region, Amnesty has: 10 pages on Isreal. (pop 6 million) 7 pages on Saudi Arabia (pop 23 million) 9 pages on Afghanistan (pop 30 million) 10 pages on Iraq (pop 26 million) 4 pages on Turkmenistan (pop 5 million) 7 pages on Uzbekistan (pop 28 million) The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one. Â It is an extremely liberal and progressive society. It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

Identical in every way to the Queen of Englands mandate. She is the ruler of Britain and a few other countries by the will of god. Parliament rules in her name by her authority. All laws must be passed by her personally. She is also the head of the church and the armed forces. Seems like pretty normal practise to me. How many other democracies have something like this? Sorry to hear about your countrymen.

Name me one country Ammnesty International doesn't have a pretty long rap sheet on. I don't know what country you are from, but as a control group, it might be intresting to see how much they have written about your own country. I know how much they have written about mine. (Sorry but I've never heard of the rest of those agencies although I don't doubt they say what you say they do. They all sound remarkably western orientated. **Edit** I've just looked up Freedom House, it's sponsored by the U.S. government, so I think we can pretty much discount anything they have to say about it as politically bias. LMAO, The Heritage Foundations goal is to "promote traditional American values and a strong national defence". I think we can ignore what they have to say also. I think perhaps you should be looking for sources inside Iran, rather than from an enemy nation on the otherside of the world if you wish to get a better picture. All I can find on Reporters Without Borders so far, is that they are a French organisation dedicated to freedom of the press. They are unhappy that Iranians can and do imprison members of the press, one specifically mentioned some chap who wrote so blasphemous articles about Allah. They say that while still the largest imprisoner of journalists in the Middle East, they are doing so less and less and that also, people are given prison sentences but not ordered to report to prison. In this way independant journalists may still write but have the threat of prison hanging over them. Sounds like pretty tame stuff to me. Iran has been getting more and more liberal ever since the revolution. The pace of change is very fast. Even the exiled members of the old regime have been allowed to return and their land restored to them. In terms of it's librality, try comparing it to many of the surrounding countries and you may perhaps re-evaluate your position. Uzbekistan, Turkministan, Khazakstan, the former governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia.... Iran has been a beacon of democracy in the area.

The oppositon blocks the appointments to the Judiciary, to the U.N. and god knows how many other political positions within the U.S. government. You have been trying to directly equate positions in your own government directly to positions in the Iranian government. This is not helpful. The two systems of government are fundamently different. The processes are not the same. They do not equate. My point is not to tell you than Iranian governments don't do what you say they do or that each and every element of Iran's government is more democraticly transparent than any American method, only that those examples do not mean that the government isn't highly democratic. You are judging an alien system by American standards and ignoring all it's achievements in favour of only the elements that you perceive as failings. If all you are looking for is what's bad about something, then that's all you will ever find. I feel the same as you Dante, respect for their culture or no respect, I'd rather Iran was denied the ability to make nukes. By force if necessary, as I believe it will be.

What's in a name? In America the opposition party are called Democrats, does that mean that the Republicans are against democracy? Would a second chamber upset the first chamber in a true democracy? Would members of one party/ideology block the appointment to political positions of members of an opposing party or ideology? Yes. Quite often. It happens every day, in every democracy. Why are you singling out Iran? Foreign cultures and systems of government are not intrinsically evil or unjust merely because their foreign policy is opposed to ours.

Maybe not democracy as you are used to, but democracy nonetheless. You may not personally prefer the constitution of Iran's democracy to your own, but it still has one nevertheless. And an advanced one. Many democracies have unelected bodies. All elected bodies open a system to corruption and mob rule. Many cultures choose not to rely on them, or to limit them. The French system is not the only successful democratic model.

The Guardian Council is an indirectly elected second chamber. The members are voted upon by and from the judiciary. I see nothing undemocratic about it so far. In 2004 the guardian council vetoed 3,000 people from standing for parliament, including 80 who were holding office at that time and it vetoed some oppositon laws that parliment voted to pass. The party that lost the election cried fowl. It is important to remember that Iran is a fundamentalist sate. A theocracy. The Guardian Councils elected purpose is to maintain the religious order of the country, constitutionally it's authority outweighs that of Iranian parliament. All seems like democracy in action to me. Not every Democracy or even Republic is based on the French model.

Clearly any law that says the husband must allow them to go out isn't holding Iranian women back in any way. Of course no such law actually exists, so the point is moot. Since the 1979 revolution, Iranian women have accrued no end of new civil rights. 50% of University students are female. Working females are common place. They have the vote. They are allowed to stay single and their marriages aren't arranged. However, I am not aware of any Iranian law preventing wives from going out without husbands permission. I think perhaps you may have this confused with one about wives not being able to work without the husbands permission. A wife is capable of annulling this right during the wedding ceremony if she so chooses. Although it's traditional, she is not forced into that circumstance by marriage. (Or indeed forced into marriage at all). In Iran, female workers comprise 38% of the public sector workforce.

This to me is the "I can't crack a nut with this sledgehammer" dilemma. solution is not, "use a bigger hammer". The troops are the problem. All the people in Iraq capable of running a government have been barred from standing. (It seems no one learned any of the lessons from the de-Nazification of Germany and the resultant back-pedalling from that position when Germany instantly dissolved into anarchy). Anarchy in Iraq has been guarenteed by the de-Baathification program. Iraq's fate has been sealed. U.S. troops (apart from all the usual stuff about being a symbol of foreign occupation, being poorly disciplined and inexperienced in peacekeeping methods, cowardly ROE bla bla bla.), are maintaining the instability by enforceing current U.S. foreign policy. No government in any country has ever had it's political institutions artificially created from scratch and succeeded. Democratic institutions come last in a countries political development, not first. First comes feudalism. Local tribal warlords and militia leaders. Until one man the baddest of them all unites the place into a country. His systems of governance become institutionaised and gradually accrue more power of their own, until a constitutional system is born. This kind of stuff takes a long time. Usually measured in centuries. It does not help, of course, Â that every time a local militiaman capable of dominating an area shows up, that American soldiers all try and kill him. U.S. intervention actively exacerbates Iraqi instability. The Iraqi government wasn't freely elected and is composed of a bunch of traitors and cowards, (many of them foreign residents rootless in the local communities) wholly dependant on U.S. military power for their personal survival. Any time we withdraw, the Iraqi people will kill them and they know it. A U.S. withdrawl is 100% against their intrests. Listen to them and we will never leave. The "democratic governments" ministers don't have the know how to manage governments. It doesn't control anything, and it is actively hindered from negotiating with the people who do by us. Sending more troops will not stabilise the country. The situation in Iraq cannot be changed by foreign intervention, until foreign leadership changes. No matter how many Democrats get elected, Bush and Blair have too much personally invested in the way this war has been run to ever back down. There will be no change in Iraq policy before the next government. Bush has locked himself into a fantasy he has no ability to make real, but cannot afford to stop living the dream. He just can't come out and say. OMG, it's a total disaster. It was my plan right from the beginning that hasn't worked as intended and currently I'm only making it worse. The blood of a million people is on my hands. I have driven my country further into debt and the only thing I have to show for it is the total disrespect of America by nine out of every ten people on the planet, where previously we were thought of as benefactors. The best thing I can do at this point is give up my job and let someone else try and fix it. Not going to happen. He will continue with his Iraqi democracy routine. The troops will stay. Instability in Iraq will stay. Nothing much is going to change by our hands over the next two years.

Iran is very democratic. Unfortunatley they keep electing governments that won't do as the West says. So we prefer to label them mad dictators hell bent on world destruction. Obviously the good people of Iran couldn't actually support their own government. (Recently created by a peoples revolution, with higher proportional votes than our own governments). Don't be thinking Iran isn't an enlightened and highly civilised culture, just because we are wanting to to bomb them.